ECT Acts realism vs MAD theoretics: Acts 16:3

W

whitestone

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
No, it is a method since the Reformation. The letters interp the Gospels
The doctrine portions of the letters interp the historical accounts.
The doctrine portions of the letters interp the symbolic passages.
etc.

Don't base anything in the Rev that is not cleared elsewhere.

And besides what is God is the light and Christ is the temple anyway?
Click to expand...


hmm,,,Paul and Barnabas have an difference over JMark in Acts 16? Luke shifts from "they,them ect." to "we,us ect." in Acts 16? John gives Peters name as the one that cut off the ear as if he was already dead and it didn’t matter any more. ,,,,seems to me an difficult thing for the letters to be interp. the Gospels before they were written,,, And time, don’t forget the things in Genesis about time you might need it in the end to reason through what those things do. Isaiah 46:10 KJV
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
whitestone said:
hmm,,,Paul and Barnabas have an difference over JMark in Acts 16? Luke shifts from "they,them ect." to "we,us ect." in Acts 16? John gives Peters name as the one that cut off the ear as if he was already dead and it didn’t matter any more. ,,,,seems to me an difficult thing for the letters to be interp. the Gospels before they were written,,, And time, don’t forget the things in Genesis about time you might need it in the end to reason through what those things do. Isaiah 46:10 KJV
Click to expand...



Now that we have both types of material in finished form, the odd bits and pieces of the historical accounts should be interp'd by the doctrine of the letters. That's why what ever happened in 16:3 is not a "doctrine" going forward. Rom 14 is.
 
W

whitestone

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
Now that we have both types of material in finished form, the odd bits and pieces of the historical accounts should be interp'd by the doctrine of the letters. That's why what ever happened in 16:3 is not a "doctrine" going forward. Rom 14 is.
Click to expand...


Paul often speaks of things not known before,,,In Revelation Jesus unseals a "sealed book" that no one could open,,,why would I agree and say they interpret things that were not known or were sealed?
 
S

SimpleMan77

New member
jamie said:
There's that "born again" thing for one. Bad translation.
Click to expand...

It's interesting that Nicodemus thought that Jesus was talking about being born a second time, so he must've been hearing the same translation as the KJV translators were (and at least half of other translators).


Sent from my iPhone using TOL
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
whitestone said:
Paul often speaks of things not known before,,,In Revelation Jesus unseals a "sealed book" that no one could open,,,why would I agree and say they interpret things that were not known or were sealed?
Click to expand...


I don't know. the interp principles I'm talking about are when Jesus himself does something particular but one of the letters is slightly different. Are we supposed to repeat everything Jesus did exactly?

This question of this thread is there was a circumcision of a Gentile which Paul arranged for when he's the guy not calling for circ anywhere else among Gentiles.
 
S

SimpleMan77

New member
jamie said:
Yes, it seems to be very misunderstood by many people who claim to have been born again without understanding spiritual reproduction.
Click to expand...

But you said that the translation was faulty, not that the "common interpretation" was incorrect. That means you think the words "born again" should have been translated differently.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL
 
jamie

jamie

New member
LIFETIME MEMBER
SimpleMan77 said:
But you said that the translation was faulty, not that the "common interpretation" was incorrect. That means you think the words "born again" should have been translated differently.
Click to expand...

The common interpretation is faulty because like Nicodemus most people don't understand what Spirit birth means. Jesus explained that those born of the flesh remain flesh until they are born from a different parent, our Father.
 
S

SimpleMan77

New member
jamie said:
The common interpretation is faulty because like Nicodemus most people don't understand what Spirit birth means.
Click to expand...

Ok, so the KJV isn't wrong in its translation, but the way people understand and apply it is wrong. Don't blame the KJV if that's not what you mean.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL
 
jamie

jamie

New member
LIFETIME MEMBER
SimpleMan77 said:
Ok, so the KJV isn't wrong in its translation, but the way people understand and apply it is wrong. Don't blame the KJV if that's not what you mean.
Click to expand...

It would have been easy for the translators to say created anew instead of born again.
 
S

SimpleMan77

New member
jamie said:
It would have been easy for the translators to say created anew instead of born again.
Click to expand...

But Nicodemus thought Jesus said "born again" because he answered "how can a man get back in his mother's womb and be born again".

No, Nicodemus didn't misunderstand the language Jesus used, he just misunderstood the symbolic nature of it.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL
 
jamie

jamie

New member
LIFETIME MEMBER
SimpleMan77 said:
But Nicodemus thought Jesus said "born again" because he answered "how can a man get back in his mother's womb and be born again".
Click to expand...

This was Nicodemus' oblique way of asking for further explanation, which Jesus then provided.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
SimpleMan77 said:
My point exactly. His follow-up question was "what do you mean be born again?"


Sent from my iPhone using TOL
Click to expand...


The odd thing to me is that 'anothen' is actually often 'from above' meaning God/heaven. Nic did not seem to notice that at all, with his reference to the human womb, or else meant that a person was so defiled he would have to start life all over and be perfect. Which may be how extreme some Pharisees were.

3:27 confirms this on 'anothen', with objective meaning and in the same passage. It may simply mean to start over entirely as (negatively) in Gal 4:9.
 
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
The odd thing to me is that 'anothen' is actually often 'from above' meaning God/heaven. Nic did not seem to notice that at all, with his reference to the human womb, or else meant that a person was so defiled he would have to start life all over and be perfect. Which may be how extreme some Pharisees were.

3:27 confirms this on 'anothen', with objective meaning and in the same passage. It may simply mean to start over entirely as (negatively) in Gal 4:9.
Click to expand...

Huh?
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
SaulToPaul said:
Huh?
Click to expand...


the difficulty STP is that 'from above' (anothen) is a little tricky to translate. 3:28 shows that it's got to mean from heaven. That seems so obvious until we realize that Nic immediately went to human birth to respond to what was being said. As a Pharisee he must have aggressively believed that birth determined all; is that why 1:13 is so pointed, so quickly in the account? If so, then lineage from Israel is completely decimated, isn't it?

We know he began talking here as spiritually dead. But notice where his Judaism takes him to solve this problem. MOST OF THE NT IS WRITTEN TO DEAL WITH JUDAISM, TO CLARIFY CHRISTIAN TRUTH VS. JUDAISM.

Ie, it is spiritually dead to say that lineage or ancestry has anything to do with being a Christian, which is why I fight 2P2P, which insists that God operates both ways, bipolarly.
 
D

Danoh

New member
Interplanner said:
the difficulty STP is that 'from above' (anothen) is a little tricky to translate. 3:28 shows that it's got to mean from heaven. That seems so obvious until we realize that Nic immediately went to human birth to respond to what was being said. As a Pharisee he must have aggressively believed that birth determined all; is that why 1:13 is so pointed, so quickly in the account? If so, then lineage from Israel is completely decimated, isn't it?

We know he began talking here as spiritually dead. But notice where his Judaism takes him to solve this problem. MOST OF THE NT IS WRITTEN TO DEAL WITH JUDAISM, TO CLARIFY CHRISTIAN TRUTH VS. JUDAISM.

Ie, it is spiritually dead to say that lineage or ancestry has anything to do with being a Christian, which is why I fight 2P2P, which insists that God operates both ways, bipolarly.
Click to expand...

It's clear what you are saying.

Just as clearly...wrong.

A "hunh" in the end...nevertheless.

You believe your fool notions over "nevertheless, what saith the Scripture?" Gal. 4:30.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top